LEFT WITHOUT NOTICE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 293, 11 December 1929, Page 11

LEFT WITHOUT NOTICE.

TWO BOARDERS SUED. LANDLADY'S CLAIM FAILS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. "I know of no custom that a boarder is bound to give a week's notice' before be leaves," said Mr. C. R- Orr-Walker, in the Magistrate's Court to-day. "No doubt it is usual for a boarder to say to his landlady that he will be going in a week or a month or something like that, but that does not make a custom enforceable by law. "It is no doubt usual for a boardinghouse keeper when she takes a boarder in to say that a week's notice will be required, but there is no evidence in this case of any contract. On the evidence I must nonsuit the plaintiff." The facts were that the plaintiff carried on business as a boardinghouse keeper and on Monday, September 23, the defendants took possession of a double room at her house. They stayed until the following Sunday night, when they told the plaintiff that they were going to leave next day. This they did, and the plaintiff claimed £1 15/ from each, in lieu of a week's notice.

Counsel for defendants said that a person who kept boarders and lodgers! was not in any different position from an innkeeper. That was clear law and no notice was required. He quoted authorities to show that there must be a definite contract to give notice and if there was no contract there was no necessity to give notice. Counsel for the defence submitted that the defendants had a license, not a lease, but that did not absolve them from giving notice. A landlady had to prepare rooms for guests and it was not reasonable for boarders to leave without giving some sort of notice.